Talk:Batwoman Vol 2
__FORCETOC__ The Departure of Williams and Blackman For posterity's sake, here is a brief account of events which led to the departure of J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman from this title, and what little can be told of their plans for the series, which were scrapped in favour of Marc Andreyko's first issues. On September 4th, 2013, Williams wrote on his website of their decision to leave the book after issue #26, citing last-minute editorial demands and changes, the most controversial of which being the mandate that DC's superheroes should not be married. Controversial, because Batwoman was a homosexual, and as such, would be one of the first lesbian weddings depicted for a lead character in comics. DC made it clear that the mandate was for every character, and nor merely an edict meant to prevent a lesbian marriage. In any case, in response to the creators' decision to quit the book, DC opted not to publish the submitted scripts for and #26, instead hiring Marc Andreyko to begin writing with with #25 - a Zero Year tie-in. This was part of a move to see the character more integrated with the DC Universe, which Williams and Blackman had resisted. Due to the nature of the publishing schedule which DC adheres to, solicitations were sent out for both issues #25 and #26 with Williams' intended cover designs, and short plot summaries. These two issues contained the two concluding chapters of the story arc This Blood is Thick - which will not likely see publication. - Hatebunny (talk) 22:29, January 2, 2014 (UTC) Vol 1 or 2? This series launched with a #0 solicitation release earlier this year right? And is not going to start as a series proper until post-Flashpoint? So is this really Volume 2 or is it still being counted as Volume 1? And if it IS to be Volume 2, perhaps we should delete the redlinks for Vol 1 1 and Vol 1 2 on the Batwoman Vol 1 page? DigiFluid 15:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :I've made this point before on the #1 issue page, but the discussion apparently died out. -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]][[User talk:Tupka217|''217]] 15:30, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm sort of of the opinion that, since #1 is going to be part of The New 52, maybe we ought to scrap this page entirely. That is, unless the #0 has some direct influence on the on-going series and/or contradicts anything that gets changed by the reboot. DigiFluid 15:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::The way I understand it, this is going to be the #1 that's been announced and delayed since, what, March?, and it's by the same creative team as #0. --'[[User:Tupka217|Tupka']][[User talk:Tupka217|217]] 16:48, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::::Its definitely the same and should go to volume one. I think when Peteparker made the page, he saw there was at least one issue under volume one and assumed this was the beginning of the second volume. Which was the case on every book except this one. Kyletheobald 18:42, August 6, 2011 (UTC) It appears we're in agreement then? "Vol 2" is a goof/error made some time ago and should be scrapped? Can we go ahead and drop this then and fold the current "Vol 2 1" and "Vol 2 2" into Vol 1? DigiFluid 16:25, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :... Or perhaps not. Bleeding Cool News reports that in September, for the 1 year aniversary of The New 52, all the titles will be getting an Issue #0. That would seem to indicate that this is indeed Volume 2, and that Volume 1 had a single issue, numbered #0. Bartender47 17:42, April 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Aargh, DC. --'[[User:Tupka217|Tupka']][[Message wall:Tupka217|217'']] 18:08, April 23, 2012 (UTC) :::Yep. It's been confirmed with the September 2012 Solicitations. Bartender47 18:52, June 12, 2012 (UTC)